[GrandEagle]

"P.S. You seem quite knowledgeable of the Federalist papers. I am currently in a discussion about search and seizure with another FReeper. I have found the PA assembly discussions on the issue in the Anti-Federalist documents but can't seem to locate such a discussion from the Federalist side of the issue. Any pointers?"

Sorry, different issue.
The discussion is around the police powers of search and seizure. The other party in the discussion seems to think that there is no Constitutional requirement for a warrant. His position was the the founders were terrified of warrants because it released the police from any liability. I found just the opposite in the PA discussions. Couldn't find a word at all about it from the Federalist point of view.

GE

[Vicomte13]

The 4th Amendment is clear on warrants: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Constitution is utterly clear on warrants, and the law has been this way since 1789.

What the Americans of that era hated were general warrants that were issued (they were called "writs of assistance") which gave agents of the Crown the power to search for contraband without any limitation. With the 4th Amendment, they very sharply limited the circumstances under which a warrant could be issued, by whom, and for what purposes. They also put the asking for a warrant under the penalties of perjury, by requiring an oath to be sworn out.